Hi, Just after a bit of advice and am interested in what other schools (particularly Independents/Academies) are doing out there. Regarding the new 'One-off Consent' form issued by the Department of Education. The form says that it covers all visits, inc residential, adventure activities, off site sporting fixtures and off site activities for nursery's. The form and guidance reads (to me anyway!) that as long as parents are informed of each trip and are given the option to opt out then they don't need to consent each and every time for the types of trips described above, so long as the 'one-off' consent form has been completed. Are other schools doing this? only I've had some conflicting advice from my local LEA who said they are still insisting on individual trip consents for those trips I have described? This in my opinion goes against what the new guidance is saying... Meeting myself going back on this one, any help who be very gratefully received!! Lance

Hi Lance, Not exactly my area but I have a similar situation with my son who is a cadet. Every time he goes away I have to complete a medical form. I now have a pile of pre-completed ones to hand so all I have to do is sign and date one when required! I suspect that the situation has evolved unwittingly to ensure that parents are aware their children are actually going on a trip. Informing parents of anything by depending on a child to tell them or hand over a letter is lot more effective when there is a consequence of non-compliance, such as not going unless their parents respond. How many times have parents been handed a consent form at the 11th hour? I strongly believe consent forms are being used mainly for confirmation

I gather the new guidance is due for review/clarification next year so the advice may change/become clearer. Until the guidance is totally clear I think schools will continue to err on the side of caution, even if it is do defend themselves in civil cases and against ambulance chasers. Whether or not consent is still required for each trip I feel parents will still need to be asked if there are changes in medical conditions, allergies etc for trips as well as having the option to opt out. A certain amount of risk assessment will still be required (especially for the higher risk trips and trips abroad etc) so the paper trail will very much remain in any case.

My son is of an age where he is going on these type of school trip. Usually there is some cost - often considerable- to the parent/guardian. So if I have signed a one off consent/medical form at the beginning of the year I don't see an issue with him going on these events - by sending my check in I think I have given that continued consent and would know what my child was doing.

My daughter used to attend a very small Primary School (about 100 pupils) and when this new guidance was introduced I was amazed because the variation in the nature of the trips they went on was significant and so therefore was the risk. There were also some issues about individual trips which could have been a problem for certain children and therefore the opportunity to get parents to "give permission" and therefore think about this before the child went was important. As others have said it was also an opportunity for the school to ask for payment/suggest clothing/food etc. so I don't see how removing the permission requirement will cut down on bureaucracy. Lucy

I'm not entirely sure how a parent can make an informed decision about something so generic in it's question. Such consent it assuming that the appropriate controls will be in place, to which the parent will not be informed off, but they will give their consent to prior. I would be less concerned about what the civil implications of this are and more interesting to see how this would provide as a reasonable defence within a crown prosecution case. It would seem if the Govt. are stream-rolling in a standard to which they are themselves uncertain about, hence the forthcoming review, maybe they should maintain the perceived undesirable recommendation of consent per trip, else they will be culpable and open to criminal prosecution as well. Albeit, paradoxically. Crown v Crown. Any LLPs out there want to pitch in? Andrew Böber CMIOSH FRSPH FRGS